As known to participants in athletics, the ankle is often injured as a result of contact with other participants or items of equipment, or as a result of the ankle assuming an unnatural position during play. Injuries typically occur during motions typically associated with athletics such as running, jumping, falling, or the like. Specifically, ankles are particularly vulnerable to sprains, fractures, and the like.
Athletes at risk for ankle injuries often utilize some form of ankle support during participation in sporting events. A large number of ankle injuries occur when the foot rolls inwardly (referred to as “eversion”) or outwardly (referred to as “inversion”) from the leg. Many athletes rely upon taping to provide supplemental ankle support, whereby the athlete or trainer winds athletic tape around the athlete's ankle to thereby limit the motion of the ankle relative to the leg. Although taping stabilizes the ankle against undesired motion, a number of drawbacks exist. For example, taping may restrict all motion of the ankle, both desirable and undesirable, because the tape is wound circumferentially around the ankle. The restrictive characteristics of taping thus hinder the athlete's ability to perform. Further, tape tends to stretch and loosen as the athlete moves, thereby decreasing its effectiveness in supporting the ankle.
Known stabilizing devices include boot-shaped members or sleeves which cover the athlete's foot and ankle and include supplemental straps designed to wrap around and stabilize certain areas of the individual's foot and ankle. Two such devices are described in commonly-assigned U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,067,486 and 5,795,316, the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference.
The majority of ankle sprains are caused by eversion and inversion of the foot. Seventy-five to ninety percent (75-90%) of sprains are attributable to inversion (i.e., outward rolling of the foot). The devices described in the '486 and '316 patents tend to reduce the incidence of injuries resulting from inversion and eversion. Nevertheless, undesirable movement of the ankle may occur as a result of lateral-as well as vertical-movement of upper portions of the body member relative to lower portions of the body member. Thus, a need exists for an ankle stabilizing device which effectively minimizes lateral and vertical movement of the upper portions of the body member relative to the lower portions of the body member. Stated differently, a need exists for an ankle stabilizing device that further minimizes injuries resulting from inversion and eversion of the ankle.
Further, known devices tend to prohibit the forward movement of upper portions of ankle with respect to the foot (i.e., dorsiflexion) and rearward movement of upper portions of ankle with respect to the foot (i.e., flexion). Thus, a need exists for an ankle stabilizing device that provides sufficient support without unduly restricting forward and rearward movement of upper portions of the ankle with respect to the foot.
Known stabilizing devices also include stiffening units or shells which support portions of the athlete's ankle. One such brace is described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,053,884 to Peters and assigned to Athlete Protection Gear, LLC. The '884 patent discloses an ankle brace having a cuff pivotably connected to a base, wherein the cuff is secured to an ankle with a single strap. The cuff includes a left leg and a right leg that are pivotably connected at a rear pivot point. Unfortunately, the brace fails to provide sufficient support for athletes participating in strenuous activities (e.g., basketball and football). Specifically, the pivoting rear section permits lateral movement of the left and right legs, thus failing to prevent inversion and eversion of the ankle during strenuous exercise. Moreover, the pivoting rear section permits the structural separation of the left and right legs of the brace during strenuous exercise such that the single strap securing the brace to the ankle will release. Furthermore, the '886 patent fails to provide sufficient support about portions of the upper ankle. In other words, the cuff structure of the '886 patent does not extend sufficiently about portions of the upper ankle to provide the support necessary to minimize injury.
Another known device is described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,069,202 to Prock that discloses an ankle brace having a foot support shell, an anterior band, lateral and medial uprights that depend from the anterior band and that are pivotably connected to the shell, and straps for securing the brace to the foot. The structural configuration of the foot support shell prohibitively limits the natural movement of the foot during walking and running. Stated differently, the forward and rearward movement of the upper ankle with respect to the foot (i.e., dorsiflexion and flexion) is restricted because the foot support shell encapsulates the entire heel and extends almost the entire length of the bottom of the foot. Further, the three straps disclosed necessarily secure the brace to the foot at fixed points and fail to provide support about the entire ankle.
Unfortunately, the known stiffening units described above are single unit pieces that are not capable of being readily incorporated into a flexible boot shaped body member in a secure fashion that will provide sufficient support for the individual. Thus, still a further need exists for ankle stabilizing apparatus that can be readily incorporated into existing body members in a secure fashion.